Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki — it is really easy.

Thanks V - More info on the vessel - The current name is Green Coast and its IMO: 5209780 Arno-nl (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this IMO original from the vessel's beginning in the Mathias-Thesen-Werft from 1960? --Vilensija (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes the builder has had a name change. See also w:Nordic_Yards_Wismar. In the section 'Ships built by VEB Mathias-Thesen-Werft Wismar' this ship is not mentioned, but is mentioned in the summary of the w:Mikhail Kalinin-class passenger ship project 101/Seefa 340 as first series no.10. In this list sister ships are mentioned which can be found on the pages of the VEB Mathias-Thesen-Werft Wismar. Some work still has to be done here on Wikipedia to cross link and complete the overviews.Arno-nl (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's a stub article about the shipbuilding company, so far. I just wondered of that IMO code's transition through Litva, Boguchar, Fu Jian, Green Coast... --Vilensija (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

In 1987 the IMO adopted Resolution A.600(15), "aimed at enhancing maritime safety, and pollution prevention and to facilitate the prevention of maritime fraud" by assigning to each ship a permanent identification number which would continue despite any subsequent change in the vessel's name, ownership or flag. When made mandatory, through SOLAS regulation XI/3 adopted in 1994 and which came into force on 1 January 1996, it was applied to cargo vessels that are at least 300 gross tons (gt) and passenger vessels of at least 100 gt. See w:IMO numbers. IMO nos. are part of a worldwide database without taking into account the vessels' Flag. The pre-IMO official Numbers were issued by each Flag State for its own flagged vessels.Arno-nl (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I know what is in EN wiki. It's theory. of course, this code should be transferred despite flags and ownership. Thanks. --Vilensija (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Dear Arno, (may I call you by this name?) I am really surprised with your fantastic and outstanding contribution. Do you own that book by Dobin? I created a Commons category for him. Were all these postmarks scanned by you from the Dobin's book? Very, very special contribution of yours. Thank you so much! --Michael Romanov (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much Michael, yes please call me Arno. I indeed have his book which is a great help in determining folded letters of the Russian empire. I did not scan anything from his book, but only from my own collection. I have a small collection of folded letters and scanned them partly, some i bought from the Arthur White estate. There is just too little interest in the Russian pre-stamp period. Arno-nl (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow! I admire very much the spectrum, depth and uniqueness of your collection. It's really, really impressive! I noticed that you have certain interest in Russian/Soviet philately. How did you come to that? --Michael Romanov (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

You make me blush. Why Russia? The country's complex, intriguing history and ditto postal history and still plenty to discover. Some of the most beautiful stamps ever made. Arno-nl (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Now you make me be proud... By the way, in your originally created article, w:Manfred Dobin, you indicated this Dobin's work: Dobin, M.A., The Postal Rarities of Russia and USSR (2002). I cannot actually find it. Please let me know where you got it from. Thanks. --Michael Romanov (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Same here! The book is mentioned here, the official website of A.I.E.P. on Dobin, which i think is a reliable source. I never saw the book either, i thought it was me. So its a rare book or an error on that site. Arno-nl (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Arno! I am stunned. Where did you get this envelope? It's very unique and very special! Do you know that it was sent by the prominent Russian and Soviet scientist Andrey Semyonov-Tyan-Shansky (see also Andrej Petrovitsj Semjonov-Tjan-Sjanski as well as his photo)? I have no idea who is the letter's addressee, Vera Mikhaylovna Muromtseva, and what she did in 1938 in Moscow. But at least, you can add this envelope file to the appropriate Wikipedia articles about Andrey Semyonov-Tyan-Shansky. Thank you. Best regards, --Michael Romanov (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Michael :-) . I was unaware of the sender. A single franking of the 20k polar stamp is scarce, It took me years to find it...in a small lot. Great thing how written documents like covers are physical evidence of existence, snapshots us back in time. Sure I can add it to the corresponding Wikipedia article, however I am hesitant, is it relevant enough to do so? It would be great if this letter was sent to a known and significant (affectionate...) relation of Andrey. Arno-nl (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not found any information about any relation between Andrey and Vera. It's up to you to add it to the articles. At least, this envelope is a piece of his handwriting. Cheers, --Michael Romanov (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You are right. Will ad the picture to the article. The admin can/will delete it anyhow if needed.Arno-nl (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for adding Russian description texts to few files. I will probably use more files you uploaded to illustrate Wikipedia articles. But how did you find that your incredible Commons uploadings are now used in Russian Wikipedia? Do you use any special tool for that? :) --Michael Romanov (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You do a great job! No tool - in the section: 'File usage on other wikis' it shows where the file is used. Arno-nl (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear Arno-nl,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2015) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Hi Arno! Do you have images of various local stamps issued in Peru in 1870s to 1890s from your collection or somewhere else? They are needed to illustrate this Russian article. Thank you. --Michael Romanov (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mike! Yes i have some: The 1884-85 provisional overprints, although genuine overprints exist for many areas (Alerta, Ancachs, Apurimao, Arequipa, Ayacucho, Chachapoyas, Chala, Chiclayo, Cuzco, Huacho, Moquegua, Paita, Pasco, Pisco, Piura, Puno and Yca), more have been forged. I can scan the ones i have but i am not 100% certain they are genuine. Will also scan some of the 1881-82 Arequipa and Puno free zone issues and the 1884 local issue Lima – Peru 1874-1879 with sun and ‘Correos Lima’ overprint. Arno-nl (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow, you're a rich man!! I don't know what you don't have in your vast and special collection! :) Thanks a lot! --Michael Romanov (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Nope, not rich unfortunately, but 35+ years of buying and selling will get you stuff. Arno-nl (talk) 06:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Two more questions, Arno. In Spanish Wikipedia, there is a table for stamps: Serie «Sol y escudo del Perú» (1874-1894). It would be wonderful to populate the table with the appropriate stamps. Do you have any images for that? Thank you.

Also, the first column is Nº Scott. But what means the combined numbers like 23 - A19, 24 - A19, etc.? What is this A19? Thanks. --Michael Romanov (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Good idea, will focus on Peru, and add pics to the library. The A-number in scott is the design. So Scott 21, A17 means the 'Sun God of the Incas' design, A18 to A21 are the coat of arms, A22-A23 are the larger 'Sun God of the Incas' designs and so on.Arno-nl (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mike, i just noticed that the Trencito issue of Peru was actually issued in April 1870 and not in 1871 as all catalogues perpetually state. this ref. contains the source: [1] On page 74 in the catalogue it shows a cover from July 1870. I changed the date in the files in Wikimedia, could you change it in the Russian article too? Arno-nl (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

That is an amazing discovery, Arno, regarding the Trencito issue date! Thank you very much for that! I will correct the Russian article based on this update. Best, --Michael Romanov (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Nothing new under the sun (and under the moon). :) Actually, we described the 1870 Trencito issue few years ago in some Russian Wikipedia articles by referring to these sources: [2], [3]. I just forgot about that. Cheers, --Michael Romanov (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the great sources Mike. Arno-nl (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all the information, which was a new book to me.

I am collecting a rather specialised subject of Austrian Post Offices at Preveza.
For your own interest only, you could see an article that I am currently working at here.
I have no idea about Ottoman revenue stamps.
If you have some relevant articles which are on line or digitised I would be much obliged to you, if you could spare them with me.

I added another 20 para fiscal stamp on commons a while ago. The postmark seems to be a forgery, as the PREVESA is written with larger characters.
AS for the rest three examples, if they forged they are really good work.
The price of them is not that high to make forgeries attractive.

Thanks. As for the price. Levant Lloyd postmarks are scarce, in demand and thus fetch high amounts. In Muellers handbook (Austria and Lombardy-Venetia cancellations 1850-64) section Levant (p. 217) there is a Prevesa postmark catalogued, #41a type RS-f (roman font, single circle with date) which is quite uncommon, points vary from 50 up to 100x2. But this is a different type then yours. The combination Lloyd and Prevesa is not known in Mueller. There is mention of following Lloyd postmarks (p. 216-218):

Constantinople

Jaffa

Kustendje

Lagos

Latakien

Salonich

Smirne

Varna

Supplement (p. 249)

Argostoli (200x6 points on issue V !)

In Muellers handbook of the pre-stamp postmarks of Austria (p. 190) there is a 1858 Prevesa postmark catalogued, #2048a type RS-f (roman font, single circle with date) also quite uncommon, points vary from 60x2 for black and 70x3 for blue. But this one is also different. The combination Lloyd and Prevesa is also not known in this book of Mueller. There are more Lloyd postmarks listed in this edition then above, some of which are very very scarce and attractive. (eg. Lloyd Corfu 150x5, Lloyd Ponte Lagoscuro, 175x6 / Alessandretta 150x5 / Lloyd Rettimo type RQz 175x6.

Based upon being unknown in both books of Mueller and the high valuation of Lloyd postmarks it may be safe to assume these are fake cancellations. Besides, in what case would these revenue stamps have been used/postmarked by a Lloyd agency? Arno-nl (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Arno,

I am collecting Postal History of Preveza for the past 35 years.

Very rarely I have come accross the Ausrian Lloyd handstamp of Preveza.

Whenever an example appears in any Greek or internet auction, I bid for it and most of the times I succeed in obtaining it.

I have not seen more than 10 cases in the past 35 years.

The prise that I have paid for these is from 20-60 euros.

Nicolas & Galinos are including this handstamp in their catalogue, which is more up to date for the Foreign Post Offices in Greece.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Sorry, but this one looks bad. Ww2censor (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You are absolutely right- it must be deleted, my bad. Have to draw the line more clearly for myself. Still too bad since a lot of interesting material cannot be put up. Arno-nl (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)